People ARE getting dumber (14 I.Q. points dumber)

[Ledan]

My two-cents on the issue:
The lower classes have always been the ones to produce more children. Through medieveal times to now. If that would have had an impact on human intelligence, we would not have gotten to where we are today. People are getting smarter as we more people now than 100 years ago get education.
The OP only seems to regard the upper classes 100 years ago as real people. They were a minority. And if you want to take a look at the 'real' entertainment back then look into penny dreadfulls that were heavily criticized at the time.

 

[K12]

There is a very well known effect in intelligence testing called the Flynn effect which is the observation that avergae IQ scores increase by approximately 3 points per generation (or possibly per decade I forget the exact numbers)

This means that IQ are adjusted to be harder over time so that the tests are compare to an up to date average. If this study is accurate then it has another significant

The tests don't measure a modern understanding of intelligence, they simply measure reaction times which at best is an estimation of some types of fluid intelligence. Perhaps this could have declined while general intelligence increases as the kind of intellectual skills has changed in the modern world. The ability to calculate large numbers quickly is not very useful since the invention of the calculator.

This assumes you believe that there is a general intelligence g which can be accurately represented by a number.

I'm not reading the whole study because I'm not paying for it but I would strongly hope that they corrected for things like the children's background. If they simply tested in schools then the results would be largely meaningless as the average 14 child still in school in the Victorian era wouldn't be an accurate average of the population.

It would be similar to comparing university student intelligence in the 30s with the intelligence of university students now. You would expect a decline, not from a decline in average intelligence, but because university students represent a much larger and wider percentage of the population. Schooling has become less exclusive and far less a reserve for the mega geniuses.

Another final point, the study is "in press" so it hasn't received the full peer review treatment yet only the first few stages required to be published.

 

[Malty Milk Whistle]

U wot m8

What?
What i'm saying is that a bunch of people who were VERY rich (because only they could afford to take the tests.) also happened to possibly maybe be more well read and knowledgeable than some farmer in a shack in Nigeria, who probably never had more than 4 years of schooling.
I'm not saying that victorian upper class were wise, which is a kinda strawman.
There's a rather large difference between 'wisdom', 'intelligence' and 'knowledge' which I can't go into, as i'm nowhere near qualified/educated on the subject. Also, among the gentry of Victorian England, it was considered quite fancy and admirable to be well read on a wide variety of subjects(also saying that they weren't inteligent is a bit of a kick in the teeth to common sense)
But i'm getting off track, what I'm trying to say is that there's no possible way to accurately compare the I.Q tests of today, with them in the 19th century.
Overall, I really don't think people are getting dumber, more people are just wanting to feel better about themselves by slating pop culture.

 

[EvilRoy]

People didnt have tv so they read books. That is why we had significantly more science minded and literary geniuses during this time, and as time progresses we are finding them in short supply. T.v is passive, reading is active, passivity leads to laziness which leads to stupidity.

What? During the Victorian era?
When the literacy rates were far from what they are today and finding books and other reading material was harder?

I enjoyed that. I actually think television from it's conception was an ill advised exploratory surgery into the mind of the american public. One that went horribly awry for humanity. I'd really like to see an alien do a documentary of modern humans. Some good came of it, like all the witty, intelligent stuff including documentaries. But even in that genre, 90% of it is swill.

90 % of everything is shit. We remember the Shakespeares and Mozarts because they were good and had staying power, but a lot of old entertainment has been forgotten because it didn't stand the test of time.

I kind of giggle every time someone refers to Shakespeare as intellectual art. You guys have to re-read Romeo and Juliet with a closer eye, or just check out The Comedy of Errors. It might seem like Shakespeare was really clever for weaving them into his verse, but these jokes would have been fairly obvious for anyone of the era. Fat chick and anal jokes for zero reason having nothing to do with the plot, all over the place.

More on topic: Literacy actually rose from 50% ish at the start of the Victorian era and by the end was teetering around 90%. Unfortunately 'literacy' could have meant anything from "can sign name" to "read and understood the bible" - in this era if you were working class then your education would be limited to Sunday school as elementary schools were often too expensive for them. So that isn't a great measure of anything really.

My original intention was to do some research to determine the average hrs/wk of leisure your Victorian Era working class lad or lass might have, but I was finding there were typically too many assumptions to produce any numbers with real value. Something I will note however, is that work weeks for men ranged from 60-80 hours per week, and sat at 60 hrs per week for women and children thanks to the Factory Acts (that nobody really eforced for years), so the easy way out is to take your average spare time per week and cut off the difference in work hours per week. For me that shaves my 40 hours-ish a week to 0-20 hours per week of spare time.

As a side note here I'd like to mention that of all the crap I've dug through for any kind of indication on what kind of time Victorians had for leisure I'm not finding a whole lot of mention of recreational pursuit of the arts for the working class.

The middle and upper class appears to have enjoyed theater, dances, cricket, board games, and scrapbooking (what?) with the focus primarily on family outings. The working class, who could not afford to attend many/any plays or dances or own a cricket set/board games, seemed to spend their free hours watching football matches on Saturday at 3pm, drinking, attending fruit and vegetable shows (think farmers market), Music Halls (mixed act comedy clubs), and amateur dramatics (see Shakespeare mention for how classy that was likely to be) - the admission for most of these things was very cheap or free.

Looking into how much people would have had to spend on leisure has become depressing to the point that I'm not really interested in going on. To give you the easy version, a family of 6 could survive on around two pounds a week, maybe a bit more if the kids were older and had to eat more. The average family earning per week sat in the area of two pounds 5 shillings, or 2.25 pounds. I don't know how much theater tickets cost at the time, but I'm going to say that extra quarter pound would have likely been used to buy things like replacement cloths/bedding/repairs (these were reportedly not part of the average expenditure) or reusable leisure activities like board games or toys.

Man, writing this just killed my mood.

 

[Lieju]

I kind of giggle every time someone refers to Shakespeare as intellectual art. You guys have to re-read Romeo and Juliet with a closer eye, or just check out The Comedy of Errors. It might seem like Shakespeare was really clever for weaving them into his verse, but these jokes would have been fairly obvious for anyone of the era. Fat chick and anal jokes for zero reason having nothing to do with the plot, all over the place.

Would they have been obvious, though? I thought the point with them was that you only heard them, probably just once, so it was harder to spot the puns? They weren't meant to be read, they were plays, meant to be performed.
And why would fat chick and anal jokes mean it can't be intellectual?
I'm not really a big fan of Shakespeare, but from what I understand, it has been pretty influental and is generally considered to be okay.

 

[AngloDoom]

It's true: with the increasing accessibility of information and higher education people have become less intelligence - in the same way the longer you stay in a sauna, the colder the swimming pool is when you get in.

Right, that makes sense, more information makes people less intelligent.

No your analogy pretty much spells it out for you, people only SEEM less intelligent just like the water only seems colder, it's still the same temperature as it was before you got into the sauna.

Higher education? How do you measure how "high" education is? Can you actually provide some evidence that mainstream education is "higher" than it has been?
Should we be worried that our system for educating the youth might be some kind of addict?

I'm not entirely sure you got the irony of my post - now I'm worried that you're being ironic and I'm missing out. Assuming you're not:

I don't think people even 'SEEM less intelligent' because I have no idea what people thought of each other's intelligence way back when, only that they (like us) seemed to believe there was a golden age before when everyone was morally infallible and spouting genius engineering breakthroughs with the morning toast.

'Higher education' refers to post-compulsory education, such as universities or colleges. We have a lot more people with degrees under their belts than the Victorians did, who had a lot less time to worry about education when they had apple-sized boils under their belts.

 

[EvilRoy]

I kind of giggle every time someone refers to Shakespeare as intellectual art. You guys have to re-read Romeo and Juliet with a closer eye, or just check out The Comedy of Errors. It might seem like Shakespeare was really clever for weaving them into his verse, but these jokes would have been fairly obvious for anyone of the era. Fat chick and anal jokes for zero reason having nothing to do with the plot, all over the place.

Would they have been obvious, though? I thought the point with them was that you only heard them, probably just once, so it was harder to spot the puns? They weren't meant to be read, they were plays, meant to be performed.
And why would fat chick and anal jokes mean it can't be intellectual?
I'm not really a big fan of Shakespeare, but from what I understand, it has been pretty influental and is generally considered to be okay.

Although a number of his jokes would fly by faster than the average listener could catch, there were quite a few that would only make sense if you heard them spoken as opposed to read them, and sometimes he would just straight up joke about something out of nowhere for a page or two of dialog. For instance, that fat girl joke I referenced actually lasted a full page and was the only dialog between the only two actors on stage. The person being joked about is never mentioned again in the play, Shakespeare basically hit pause on the entire story to enjoy a few fat jokes for no reason.

I would never say studying Shakespeare isn't an intellectual pursuit, but in order for you to actually get anything out of it you can't just show up to a play, you actually have to sit down and really study the scripts. The stories in Shakespeare's works aren't really all that impressive, they range from barrel bottom to pretty good in terms of actual narrative quality. Its the skill in usage of the English language where Shakespeare was a genius, that is - his works are extremely impressive and very much worth intellectual pursuit from a technical perspective, which is not something a person could reasonably do by listening to the play unless you had like a dvd of it so you could rewind every few lines to get a proper feel for how the language is being used.

 

[Naeras]

Is this study really only comparing reaction times? Because that really only gives you data on, well, reaction times, and I don't think the whole "correlation != causation"-thing needs to be repeated any more in this thread. I mean, sure, I am probably both smarter than and have better reaction times than a white-trash soccer mom that spends her entire day watching reality TV, but I am also a lot smarter than a lot of the people I'm practicing karate with, yet a lot of them have better reaction times than me.

Girls is drivel, as is most of breaking bad, the pacing in that show is really bad, but there are moments that elevate it to goodness. Back when pcs were dominant in the market, there were more roguelikes and strategy games.

And most of those were shitty knock-offs of the few good examples of the genre that we fondly remember today.

I mean, do you remember how many bad strategy games that popped up in the wake of Starcraft(or the port. UGGGHH the port), how many fucking horrible 3D platformers we saw as a result of Super Mario 64, or the metric shitload of awful fighting games that followed Tekken 3 or any of the big Street Fighter-releases? Or all the bad movie-games that were just as bad as, and often worse than, the movie games that are released today?
No?
In that case, you are either too young to remember it, or you've managed to suppress the memories of them.

This goes for any other media as well. Go try to find some kiosk novels from 100 years ago, and you'll find that the only thing that has changed very much for them, is the amount of blatant racism you'll find in them.

 

[Pink Gregory]

This goes for any other media as well. Go try to find some kiosk novels from 100 years ago, and you'll find that the only thing that has changed very much for them, is the amount of blatant racism you'll find in them.

I found a book from I *think* pre-1950 in an Oxfam shop a few years ago. Some of the 'praise', that one often finds on the title page in the interest of promoting the book, detailed a comment on how making the chief villain a foreigner was a 'masterstroke'.

 

[krazykidd]

Has this been a peer reviewed study? Because I found a spelling mistake:

Since people with lower I. Qs tend to search for others like them does it not make since that they would also look for people of similar economic standing?

Would it be considered ironic that the writer of an article about lowering IQ levels Misspells the word 'sense'?

There's also this line:

Evidence found by doctors states that another possible explanation for the decline in average I.Q. is via blood transfusions They found that the blood not only carried a small amount of the person but it also carried the information that allowed them to think. They did a transfusion between two people, one was intellectually very advanced and the other was one person who was considerably lower on the I.Q. ladder. The recipients of the blood became confused over time and their ability to maintain their previous level of I.Q. was indeed noted to be in jeopardy. The result of this experiment was that in blood donation centers all across the countries, the recipient was asked to put their I.Q. into the forms they were required to fill out.

I would very much like to see this evidence. I mean, that's just mad.

EDIT:

not to mention this chart is absolute balls:

I mean, take half a second and actually study that chart, it's so full of crap you could stick it in a slurry tank and use it as fertilizer.

Every single country depicted on that graph the "average IQ" for every single country listed is higher in 2010 than it was in 1950, which to me would directly disprove the entire point of this whole article. Yet the overall Average IQ counter (in dark blue) plummets uniformly for no freaking observable reason unless they are actually hiding the important data that showing a falling of IQ, because it sure as hell isn't related to the main countries listed on that graph, which as I stated earlier, are all rising uniformly directly opposing the whole argument that IQ in these countries is falling!
The actual 'projected data' line only starts at 2050, so unless the guy that wrote this beamed down the Hadron Collider I find the data that he apparently was able to collect for the years 2014-2050 highly suspicious for hopefully obvious reasons.

and I have to say I like the bit where China, which is rising at a steady rate all the way up to 2013, just randomly dicks itself up in 2030 and starts falling because why the hell not.

Seriously, who came up with that chart, what were they smoking at the time, and can I slap them in the face with a wet kipper?

This... this is just...

Someone failed graph reading in highschool .I'll try and make this simple.

The blue line represents the average IQ . The other colored lines represent specific countries. The blue line declining represents the average IQ decreasing over time , while all the other colored lines , represent the increase of population over time .

Simple huh! And that took half a second of looking at the graph.

Whether it is true or not i cannot say . But i found you're rant halarious.

 

[Hero in a half shell]

-snip-

Yeah, someone else pointed that out, I didn't realise that the graph was tracking population for countries on the right and just the blue line for IQ, which would explain a few problems like China's drop due to 1 child policy taking effect, but I still don't get the whole data up to 2050 thing, and as for it providing any proof that there is a correlation between population and IQ, well it seems to bear more than a striking resemblance to another graph I once saw...

Spoiler

You know it's legit because they record temperature in Celsius: the gentleman's measuring unit.

 

[Lilani]

Would they have been obvious, though? I thought the point with them was that you only heard them, probably just once, so it was harder to spot the puns? They weren't meant to be read, they were plays, meant to be performed.
And why would fat chick and anal jokes mean it can't be intellectual?
I'm not really a big fan of Shakespeare, but from what I understand, it has been pretty influental and is generally considered to be okay.

During the time Shakespeare's works were being regularly performed, they were enjoyed by pretty much every single socio-economic strata. From the important statespeople to the working-class folks who could barely afford the cheapest standing room. And yes, when acted properly the jokes are much easier to get, and there are a lot of colloquialisms and slang used that simply aren't used anymore. That and the different grammar structure really throws us for a loop these days, and makes it easier for us to believe it was really very high brow.

So if you think about it, Shakespeare's writing was almost like a Simpsons or Family Guy of its day. Making political humor, referencing people and events of pop culture, making jokes about asses and bodily functions, and talking pretty plainly about having sex (seriously, in Romeo and Juliet Romeo's got a line that basically amounts to "And now I'm going to have sex with my wife!" after he and Juliet are secretly married).

 

[Lieju]

Would they have been obvious, though? I thought the point with them was that you only heard them, probably just once, so it was harder to spot the puns? They weren't meant to be read, they were plays, meant to be performed.
And why would fat chick and anal jokes mean it can't be intellectual?
I'm not really a big fan of Shakespeare, but from what I understand, it has been pretty influental and is generally considered to be okay.

During the time Shakespeare's works were being regularly performed, they were enjoyed by pretty much every single socio-economic strata. From the important statespeople to the working-class folks who could barely afford the cheapest standing room. And yes, when acted properly the jokes are much easier to get, and there are a lot of colloquialisms and slang used that simply aren't used anymore. That and the different grammar structure really throws us for a loop these days, and makes it easier for us to believe it was really very high brow.

So if you think about it, Shakespeare's writing was almost like a Simpsons or Family Guy of its day. Making political humor, referencing people and events of pop culture, making jokes about asses and bodily functions, and talking pretty plainly about having sex (seriously, in Romeo and Juliet Romeo's got a line that basically amounts to "And now I'm going to have sex with my wife!" after he and Juliet are secretly married).

So it's not good in your opinion, and not worth performing/reading today?

 

[Lightknight]

So the non-blue lines are tracking only population while the blue line is average IQ?

Because of the way that IQ averages work, this isn't necessarily a problem per se and should only be done on a national level. I'm not sure why it'd make any sense to do a world-wide test.

Also, in a world with ever more increasing specialization of individuals and information that is readily available, I'm not sure that IQ is being accurately measured anymore. Aside from the previous generations terror of us forgetting what they consider basic skills, the vast majority of us will not need to memorize the periodic table or how to perform complicated math equations and so there may not be a need for such well-rounded knowledge sets. Personally, I have benefitted from knowing how to solve complex problems via calculus but it's not like anyone else couldn't have just asked google how to do it and come up with the same answer.

This frees us up to pay closer attention to our specialties and to branch out in our free time as desired. No matter how hard IQ tests try to avoid testing knowledge, it has to by the nature of questioning.

 

[Lilani]

So it's not good in your opinion, and not worth performing/reading today?

Where did you get that impression? All I said was it used a lot of devices like pop culture references and slang to communicate.

Was it the Simpsons/Family guy comparison? I love Family Guy. If anything that was a compliment. And I think Shakespeare is definitely worth performing and reading today, if for no other reason than it's a rich part of our past that we have very much intact and preserved and with little embellishment or alteration. It has historical value since Shakespeare used so many colloquialisms and that gives us an image of how the laypeople of the time actually spoke, rather than how only academics spoke (since the only other people who were writing things that were preserved back then were academics)[footnote]Because while he may not have actually "made up" a lot of the words we say he did, he simply may have just been the first person to write it down and have it last on paper. Since Shakespeare was the first to do such a thing for so many words, that seems to suggest the words weren't so highly regarded until he made using such words among mixed societies vogue.[/footnote] It has entertainment value because the stories are rich and filled with great characters, situations, and images. It has artistic value because of the elaborate verses and rousing speeches given. So yeah, we should study all we have available to us of our history, and we are lucky to have so many colorful works from such a colorful person.

 

[Lieju]

So it's not good in your opinion, and not worth performing/reading today?

Where did you get that impression? All I said was it used a lot of devices like pop culture references and slang to communicate.

Was it the Simpsons/Family guy comparison? I love Family Guy. If anything that was a compliment. And I think Shakespeare is definitely worth performing and reading today, if for no other reason than it's a rich part of our past that we have very much intact and preserved and with little embellishment or alteration. It has historical value since Shakespeare used so many colloquialisms and that gives us an image of how the laypeople of the time actually spoke, rather than how only academics spoke (since the only other people who were writing things that were preserved back then were academics)[footnote]Because while he may not have actually "made up" a lot of the words we say he did, he simply may have just been the first person to write it down and have it last on paper. Since Shakespeare was the first to do such a thing for so many words, that seems to suggest the words weren't so highly regarded until he made using such words among mixed societies vogue.[/footnote] It has entertainment value because the stories are rich and filled with great characters, situations, and images. It has artistic value because of the elaborate verses and rousing speeches given. So yeah, we should study all we have available to us of our history, and we are lucky to have so many colorful works from such a colorful person.

I might have been confused as to who replied to what of my posts, but my original point was that Shakespeare was good and that it has survived in the public consciousness because it had good qualities and staying-power. And that we have forgotten about much of the lesser stuff because it wasn't as good.

I guess it was EvilRoy who apparently disagreed with me that Shakespeare's plays are quality work and have artistic merit. (Or at least cannot be enjoyed as plays.)

 

[EvilRoy]

I guess it was EvilRoy who apparently disagreed with me that Shakespeare's plays are quality work and have artistic merit. (Or at least cannot be enjoyed as plays.)

Hmm? You can enjoy them as plays, just like you can (and should) enjoy the Evil Dead series as movies and they both have their own artistic merit and positive qualities, you just can't say that watching a play, or the Evil Dead series, is an intellectual pursuit. Studying them on the other hand totally is an intellectual pursuit and has merit for both Shakespearean plays and the Evil Dead series.

I guess my point was more that sometimes people like to imply that just going to the opera or attending a play or even reading a book somehow makes you smarter or is an intellectual pursuit in a way that going to a pub with friends isn't, and that's just not true.

You could be attending a lecture given by Stephen Hawking (Crazy H. as he is known colloquially) on information loss in black holes, but if you're not actively engaging - taking notes, asking questions, looking for inconsistencies or problems, even just thinking really hard about the topic - then you may as well have gone to see Transformers 3 for all you're going to get out of the lecture. Hell at least at Transformers 3 you could have watched Shia LaBeouf get smacked around a bit with supermodels in the background. That's the problem I have with many of the claims about people in the past being smarter because they didn't have TV or videogames to mess them up. They went to plays and music halls to be distracted from a hard life just like we do with movies and games, not to philosophize on the nature of suicide.

Edit:

Looking back I can see that I didn't make my point very clearly at all. I got kinda wrapped up in trying to research Victorian Age leisure and never got around to adding a point to that first paragraph. I apologize for that poor communication.

 

[Lieju]

I guess it was EvilRoy who apparently disagreed with me that Shakespeare's plays are quality work and have artistic merit. (Or at least cannot be enjoyed as plays.)

Hmm? You can enjoy them as plays, just like you can (and should) enjoy the Evil Dead series as movies and they both have their own artistic merit and positive qualities, you just can't say that watching a play, or the Evil Dead series, is an intellectual pursuit. Studying them on the other hand totally is an intellectual pursuit and has merit for both Shakespearean plays and the Evil Dead series.

I guess my point was more that sometimes people like to imply that just going to the opera or attending a play or even reading a book somehow makes you smarter or is an intellectual pursuit in a way that going to a pub with friends isn't, and that's just not true.

I certainly wasn't saying anything about plays or opera or books being a superior form of expression. My point was that the older stuff we still know and enjoy really isn't representative of all the entertainment of the past; You can't point at Shakespeare and say 'see, this is what entertainment used to be like, but these days we have '2 and a half men'.

Do you claim there is no difference in the quality of art?
You can study anything (and something that's bad and popular has a lot about it to study), but surely there's a difference in what a piece of entertainment can offer you?

Even if you don't think about it much, a good piece of art should teach you something, even if it's just making you see a new and different point of view.

You could be attending a lecture given by Stephen Hawking (Crazy H. as he is known colloquially) on information loss in black holes, but if you're not actively engaging - taking notes, asking questions, looking for inconsistencies or problems, even just thinking really hard about the topic - then you may as well have gone to see Transformers 3 for all you're going to get out of the lecture. Hell at least at Transformers 3 you could have watched Shia LaBeouf get smacked around a bit with supermodels in the background.

And if you're blind and deaf you'd be better off reading a book.
That's about how you consume media; if you don't pay attention or can't appreciate something (because it's on a different language or you don't have enough knowledge on the subject or something.) it doesn't matter how good or insightful something is; you won't get much out of it.

Of course whether something can keep your attention is part of what makes something good. If something is confusing it might fail at storytelling. (Or you might not be the intended audience)

That's the problem I have with many of the claims about people in the past being smarter because they didn't have TV or videogames to mess them up. They went to plays and music halls to be distracted from a hard life just like we do with movies and games, not to philosophize on the nature of suicide.

I agree. Which was my original point, which I obviously failed to make.

Looking back I can see that I didn't make my point very clearly at all. I got kinda wrapped up in trying to research Victorian Age leisure and never got around to adding a point to that first paragraph. I apologize for that poor communication.

That was an interesting read, though.
When I was writing my reply on gavinmcinns' post I wondered what the literacy rate actually was in Victorian England, Googled it, decided it was long subject and just went with 'it was worse than today'.

 

[Ikasury]

Knowledge: what you know
Wisdom: how you use what you know
Intelligence: how quickly you learn what you know

IQ tests only test Intelligence, nothing more, so its not a matter what 'what' one knows or 'how' they apply it that this thing tests, its how quickly you can pick things up like patterns and recognize that it is one. i may not be a scientist with a billion degrees but you really don't need that much to recognize the down trend in 'learning' capacity, all of my neices and nephews (averaging about 10) DO NOT have the 'intelligence', 'knowledge', or 'wisdom' i did at that age, they're too distracted with no attention span to bother learning or figuring out patterns of anything, nor storing that knowledge, let alone applying wisdom...

i see this in a lot of kids nowadays, and worse yet in adults i work with, i get i'm in the 'genius' category as i've scored over a 132, but even i feel like an idiot around these people, just because my brain is trying to process 5-10 times more just to figure out a way to EXPLAIN something that to me is goddamn simple... show me something once i will remember and be capable of applying it to anything, i show any of these people/kids something 3-5 times and they still don't understand what i'm doing -.-

don't tell me humanity isn't getting 'dumber', and while its not BECAUSE of stupid shows, its BECAUSE of the distracting nature of them and all sensationalized media, people literally have no time to process what's being thrown at them so they just take it at face value, and due to that and the bad habits of our education where 'the answer is in the back of the book' no one feels any expressed need to 'look deeper' let alone figure shit out on their own, they can get someone else to tell them the answer, its stupidity bred from laziness and complacency... its not that humans are getting 'dumber' as incapable of learning/intelligence, its that they have no motivation or are so used to because of these bad habits to just not bother to apply any form of effort TO learn in general...

a smart person will always feel stupid and strive more information to not be as such, a stupid person is one that doesn't bother looking at all...

 

[Rowan93]

i'm in the 'genius' category as i've scored over a 132

An IQ of 132 isn't even past the 99th percentile, who considers that to be genius-level?